'r\ 


G.P.  Wright 


Recent  Developements  in 
Old  Testament  Criticism 


BSII60 

.W94 


..c^ 


RECENT  DEVELOPMENTS  IN  OLD 
TESTAMENT  CRITICISM 

BY 

G.  FREDERICK  WRIGHT 


Oberlin,  Ohio 
1915 


1 


q// 


Recent  Developments  in  Old  Testament  Criticism 

Paper  read  by  request  before  the  Cleveland  Congregational  Association,  March' 29,  1915. 


Neglect  of   Textual  Criticism 

About  two  years  ago  fifteen  of  the 
leatlin.i,'  Old  Testament  scholars  of 
(xi-eat  Britain  published  in  the  Lon- 
don Times  a  protest  against  further 
attempts  to  meddle  with  the  transla- 
tion of  the  Old  Testament  until  more 
work  had  been  done  to  determine  the 
original  Hebrew  text.  Strange  as  it 
may  seem  the  analysis  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament on  which  has  been  based  the 
documentary  theory  of  the  origin  of 
the  Pentateuch  has  been  made  with- 
out adequate  examination  of  its  cor- 
rectness, upon  the  so-called  Masso- 
retic  text  which  is  perpetuated  in  our 
printed  Hebrew  Bibles. 

Of  this  text  Dr.  Briggs,  twenty-five 
years  ago,  wrote  it  "was  established 
in  troublous  times,  when  it  was  im- 
possible to  give  the  time  and  pains- 
taking required  for  such  an  undertak- 
ing. There  was  no  leisure  to  correct 
even  the  plainest  mistakes.  It  was 
made  by  the  comparison  of  a  few 
manuscripts.  Tradition  speaks  of 
three,  '  in  oases  of  disagreement  the 
majority  of  two  always  determining 
the  correct  reading'"  (General  Intro- 
duction,  p.   175). 

Later  Dr.  Briggs  wrote  "  Modei'u 
scholars  have  greatly  erred  in  a  too 
exalted  estimate  of  the  correctness  of 
the  unix)inted  Hebrew  text."  And 
again  "  The  text  of  the  Septuagint 
(the  Greek  version)  where  there  is 
a  consensus  of  readings  has  a  value 
which  has  not  been  estimated  by  crit- 
ics as  highly  as  it  ought  to  be  so  far 
as  the  psalter  is  concerned"  (Briggs 
on  the  Psalms,  pp.  xxviii  and  liii). 
Many  other  statements  of  equal 
strength  will  be  found  in  Briggs'  nu- 
merous writings.  In  this  he  was  pre- 
ceded by  Robertson  Smith,  who  had 
said,   "  It  has  gradually  become  clear 


to  the  vast  majority  of  conscientious 
students  that  the  Septuagint  is  really 
of  the  greatest  value  as  a  witness  to 
the  early  state  of  the  text"  (Briggs' 
General  Introduction,  p.  229).  Yet 
when  Professor  Skinner  of  Cam- 
bridge, England,  author  of  the  re- 
cent commentary  on  Genesis  in  the 
International  Series,  was  asked  to  in- 
dicate any  works  in  which  the  genu- 
ineness of  the  names  for  God  in  the 
Hebrew  text  of  the  Pentateuch  had 
been  adequately  investigated,  all  he 
could  answer  was,  "  I  do  not  happen 
to  know  of  any  work  which  deals  ex- 
haustively with  the  subject  from  the 
critical  standpoint"  (See  Origin  of 
the  Pentateuch  by  Harold  M.  Wiener, 
p.  35).  It  should  allay  any  fears  of 
the  most  orthodox  defenders  of  the 
Bible  lest  textual  criticism  should  un- 
dermine the  authority  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament to  remind  them  that  the  Sep- 
tuagint was  the  Bible  from  which  the 
New  Testament  writers  quoted.  Of 
the  350  quotations  from  the  Old  Tes- 
tament in  the  New  300  of  them,  while 
differing  more  or  less  from  the  Mas- 
soretic  text,  agree  substantially  with 
the  Greek  translation,  indicating  in 
most  of  those  cases  a  different  He- 
brew text  from  which  the  translation 
was   made. 

These  facts  have  been  brought  out 
with  increasing  evidence  by  the  in- 
vestigations of  the  last  twelve  years. 
Those  who  have  been  most  conspicu- 
ous in  bringing  them  out  are  Mr.  Har- 
old M.  Wiener,  a  highly  educated  Jew- 
ish barrister  in  London,  whose  schol- 
arly contributions  to  the  Bibliotheca 
Sacra  already  fill  nearly  a  thousand 
octavo  pages,  and  who  has  not  been 
caught  in  any  serious  misstatement  of 
evidence,  though  antagonized  by  the 
ablest  defenders  of  the  documentary 
tbeorj'.     Agreeing  with  him  is  Johan- 


lies  Dahse  of  Freiraclulorf,  Germany, 
the  first  volume  of  whose  mouumental 
work  entitled  "  Textkritische  Mater 
ialieu  ziir  Hexatenclifrage,"  treated 
^specially  of  the  names  for  God  in 
(lenesis  and  of  Jacob  and  Israel,  and 
of  the  so-called  Priestly  Code  in  Gen- 
esis xii.  1  —  this  being  the  first  sys- 
tematic attempt  to  provide  a  com- 
plete apparatus  for  determining  the 
original  Hebrew  text  of  Genesis.  Dr. 
Dahse's  reputation  in  Germany  is  of 
the  very  highest.  When  the  late  Dr. 
Nestle,  who  was  preparing  for  the 
Wurtemburg  Bible  Union  a  new  edi- 
tion of  the  Hebrew-Greek  Bible,  died 
tM'd  years  ago,  by  general  consent  Dr. 
Dahse  was  appointed  to  complete  the 
work. 

Other  German  critics,  too  numerous 
to  mention,  have  eitb.er  revised  their 
views  upon  this  subject  or  are  revis- 
ing them,  in  view  of  the  new  light 
which  bas  appeared,  while  in  Holland 
there  has  been  a  complete  change  of 
views.  Eerdmans,  tbe  successor  of 
Kuenen  in  the  University  of  Leipzig, 
has  completely  abandoned  the  preva- 
lent method  of  determining  the  ori- 
uin  of  the  Pentateuch,  though  he  bas 
by  no  means  adopted  orthodox  views. 
His  associate,  Troelstra,  however,  has 
come  out  in  a  flat-footed  defense  of 
the  older  and  ordinary  views  of  the 
Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch. 
Aalders,  the  editor  of  one  of  the  lead- 
ing Dutch  critical  journals,  has  also 
(!ome  out  in  defense  of  the  older  views. 
While  at  Utrecht,  when  the  professor 
of  Old  Testament  Literature  in  the 
University,  who  was  a  destructive 
critic,  died  two  or  tliree  years  ago, 
they  appointed  as  his  successor.  Pro- 
fessor Noordtzij,  who  is  one  of  tlie 
ablest  defenders  of  the  historical  char- 
acter of  the  whole  Old  Testament ; 
and  in  seeking  for  a  professor  of 
comparative  religion  in  the  University 
of  Utrecht  the  authorities  have  with 
one  consent  turned  to  Dr.  M.  G.  Kyle, 
a  United  Presbyterian  pastor  in  Amer- 
ica, who  is  a  well  recognized  autlior- 
ity    in    Egyptology    and    at    the    same 


time  a  conservative  theologian,  and 
author  of  one  of  I  he  recent  most  im- 
portant books  showing  the  support 
which  the  Bible  receives  from  the  de- 
ciphering  of   ancient   monuments. 

Several  things  have  contributed  to 
these  results.  In  the  first  place,  the 
new  Cambridge  edition  of  the  Septu- 
agint  has  given  us  a  better  text  of  the 
Greek  translation  than  we  have  be- 
fore had.  Again,  recent  investiga- 
tions in  the  text  of  the  Vulgate,  or 
of  the  Latin  translation  of  Jerome, 
which  forms  its  base,  show  that  he 
had  before  him  Hebrew  Manuscripts 
differing  in  many  particulars  from 
the  Massoretic  text.  Besides  this, 
new  studies  which  are  made  respect- 
ing other  early  translations,  and  the 
discovery  of  independent  Hebrew  man- 
uscripts, are  all  giving  additional  ma- 
terial for  determining  the  original 
texts.  The  result  of  it  all  is  to  bring 
to  light  the  text  of  Hebrew  manu- 
scripts which  bad  made  their  way  to 
Egypt  in  the  time  of  Jeremiah,  thus 
giving  us  readings  current  more  than 
a  centui*y  before  the  origin  of  the  Sa- 
maritan   Pentateuch. 

Some  Results 

One  of  the  most  significant  results 
of  this  textual  criticism,  so  far  as  it 
has  proceeded,  is  to  throw  complete 
discredit  upon  the  main  clue  by  which 
the  documentary  theoiy  of  the  Penta- 
teuch was  established.  One  hundred 
and  fifty  years  ago  Astruc  divided 
the  Pentateuch  into  documents  char- 
acterized by  the  use  of  different  names 
for  the  deity.  Tlie  passages  where 
Elohim  represented  the  deity  were 
put  in  one  section,  those  in  which  Je- 
hovah were  used  were  put  into  an- 
other, and  thus  there  resulted  the  fa- 
mous "  E  "  and  "  J  "  documents.  La- 
ter critics,  led  by  Wellhausen,  repre- 
sented that  the  J  documents  were 
fragments  of  a  history  written  in  Ju- 
dah  many  centuries  after  the  time 
of  Moses  and  that  the  E  documents 
were  fragments  of  similar  history 
written   for   the   ten  tribes.     To  com- 


plete  their  theory  Deuteronomy  was 
assigned  to  a  date  several  hundred 
years  after  Moses  in  the  time  of  Jo- 
siah.  and  a  large  part  of  the  Penta- 
teuch was  said  to  be  \a  priestly  docu- 
ment written  after  the  exile,  thus  de- 
stroying entirely  the  historical  char- 
acter of  the  Pentateuch. 

One  of  the  first  results,  however,  of 
these   investigations    into    the   text   of 
the  Old  Testament  has  been  to  show 
that   there  was  no  basis  in   the  orig- 
inal texts  for  a  division  into  E  and  J 
documents.     It  now  appears  that  fi'oui 
Genesis     i.     1-Exodus    iii.    12,    where 
Jehovah  occurs   148  times  in   the  He- 
brew text,  doubt  is  thrown  by  the  evi- 
dence in  118  cases,  and  where  Eloaim 
occurs   in   179  cases   doubt   is   thrown 
on   49   of   the   passages,   while   in   the 
second  and  third  chapters  of  Genesis, 
where    the    Hebrew    text    has    Jeho- 
vah Elohim    (Lord  God)    twent^'-three 
times,  there  is  only  one  passage  where 
the  texts  are  unanimous.     As  a  result 
the  critics  are  now  compelled  to  drop 
Astruc's    clue    as    useless,    and    "  E " 
and  "  J  "  have  no  further  significance 
except   to  the  great  number  who   are 
accepting  the  destructive  criticism  as 
a   new   tradition   coming   down   to   us 
through  the  last  half  century.     Well- 
hausen  has  written  to  us,  and  permit- 
ted us  to  publish  the  same,  that  we 
have   found   the    "  sore   point "   in   his 
theory,   while    Skinner,   confessing   the 
collapse  of  Astruc's  clue,  consoles  him- 
self  with   saying    that    it    is   not    the 
first   time  in  which  a   false   clue  has 
led    to    correct    results.      This   discov- 
ery,   however,    has    thrown    into    the 
scrap  heap  a   large  part  of  the   crit- 
ical literature  upon  the  Pentateuch  of 
the   last   twenty-five   years.     The   per- 
son  who   flourishes  his   E   and   J   doc- 
uments   before    the    people    will    here- 
after  be   confessing  his  ignorance. 

But  recent  criticism  has  brought  to 
light  innumerable  other  errors  and 
fallacies  by  which  the  Wellhausen 
theory  has  been  supported.  For  ex- 
ample, in  Exodus  vi.  3  the  Massoretic 
text    makes    it    appear    that    Jehovah 


was   not   the   name   of   God  until   the 
time  of  Moses.     Moses  had  asked  (Ex. 
iii.  1.3)    that  God  should  give  him  the 
authority    of    his    "name"    when    he 
should   go   to   deliver  his  people,   and 
God    had    refused.      But   now    in    the 
sixth    chapter    God    authorizes    Moses 
to  go  to  his  people  and  speak  in  the 
•'  name  of  Jehovah."     The  evidence  of 
this    appears    in    the     emended     text, 
which  reads  not  "  I  was  not  known  by 
my  name  Jehovah,"  but  reads  "  I  had 
not    made    known    to    them    [that    is 
Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob]  my  name 
Jehovah."    That   is,    I   had   not  given 
them    the    endorsement    of    ray    name 
such   as   I    now   give  you.     This   cor- 
responds to  our  phrase  when  a  person 
is   asked   to   "  give  us   his  name "   on 
a  note.     It  will  be  noticed  that  after 
this  Closes  always  speaks  in  the  name 
of  Jehovah.     Now  this  change  in  the 
text    is   the   substitution   of    only   one 
letter   in   the   Hebrew,   but  it   is  sup- 
ported   by    the     Septuagint,     by     the 
Syriac,   and   by  the   Vulgate   versions, 
and  is  found  in  an  early  Hebrew  man- 
uscript of  the  Karaite  sect.     Another 
interesting    case    among    many    which 
may   be  adduced   is  found   in  Exodus 
xvii.  6  where  the  Hebrew  text  reads, 
"  I  thy  father-in-law  Jethro,  am  come," 
while  in  the  seventh  verse  it  is  said 
that  Moses   goes   out  to  meet  his  fa- 
ther-in-law   and    that    they    exchange 
greetings  and  then  come  into  the  tent, 
implying   that   they   had   not   met   be- 
fore.    The    critics    see    in    this    evi- 
dence of  the  two  documents.     But  sci- 
entific textual  criticism  completely  re- 
moves the  difficulty.     The   Septuagint, 
the  old   Syriac  version  and  a  copy  of 
the   Samaritan  Pentateuch,   instead  of 
"  I  thy  father-in-law  Jethro  am  come  " 
read  "And  one  said  unto  Moses  hehold 
thy  father-in-law  Jethro  comes."  Here 
the  corruption  of  a  single  Hebrew  let- 
ter gives  us  "  I "  instead  of  behold. 

I  need  not  multiply  cases.  But  a 
little  attention  must  be  given  to  the 
other  evidence  which  is  supposed  to 
sustain  the  documentary  theory.  The 
first  to  which  we  call  attention  is  to 


a  mistranslation,  or  a  misreading,  of 
Exodus  XX.  24,  wliere  the  Israelites 
are  given  permission  to  ott'er  sacrifices 
on  an  altar  of  earth  or  unhewn  stone 
"  iu  every  place  where  I  record  my 
name."  From  this  it  is  inferred  that 
offerings  were  lawful  for  the  people 
only  in  places  where  there  had  been 
a  theophany,  or  special  manifestation 
of  God's  presence.  The  correct  trans- 
lation of  this  is,  however,  "  in  all  the 
place,"  referring  to  Palestine,  the 
Holy  Land.  Or  we  may  accept  the 
text  of  the  Syriac  version  which 
reads  "  in  every  place  where  thou 
(the  sacriflcant)  shall  cause  my  name 
to  be  remembered."  This  correction  of 
the  translation,  or  of  the  text,  re- 
moves a  large  number  of  fallacious 
arguments  of  the  higher  critics  who 
assume  that  wherever  there  was  an 
altar  there  was  also  a  "  sanctuary." 
The  confusion  w^hich  this  error  has 
led  the  critics  into  is  humiliating  in 
the  extreme. 

Some  Flagrant  Errors  of  the  Critics 

Among  other  things  the  destructive 
critics  are  in  flagrant  error  iu  the  fol- 
lowing particulars : 

1st.  The  critics  deny  tliat  there  was 
a  central  place  of  sacrifice  to  which 
the  people  were  to  bring  their  offer- 
ings until  the  building  of  the  temple. 
But,  there  was  a  "  house  of  the  Lord'' 
at  Shiloh  (see  Ex.  xxiii.  19,  34;  xxvi. ; 
Judges  xviii.  31)  to  which  the  people 
were  to  bring  their  public  offerings 
three  times  a  year.  There  the  priests 
oHiciated  at  the  altar. 

2nd.  The  critics  infer  tliat  the  re- 
called "P"  (Priestly  document)  is  post- 
exilic,  because  among  other  things,  it 
is  not  quoted  by  the  prophets.  While 
the  fact  is  that  this  is  that  portion  of 
the  law  which  the  lawyers  call  "pro- 
cedure," related  to  ,  other  literature 
as  the  technical  books  on  law  and 
medicine  are  to  iwpular  writings. 
How  many  «iuotatious  from  such 
books  will  you  find  in  the  sermons  of 
the  present  day?  The  "P"  docu- 
ments contain  not  tlie  commandment'- 


which  were  for  the  common  people, 
but  such  as  were  for  the  priests  to 
secure  obedience  to  the  moral  and 
ceremonial  laws.  If  a  person  ap- 
peared to  have  leprosy,  the  "  P  "  doc- 
ument gave  directions  for  quarantin- 
ing him  and  determining  if  this  was 
the  case.  It  was  needed  from  the 
very  beginning,  and  is  what  is  found 
in  all  legal  codes.  A  minute  exam- 
ination of  the  words  used  in  this  doc- 
ument gives  no  indication  of  their  be- 
longing to  a  later  age  than  that  of 
Moses. 

od.  The  critics  fail  to  recognize 
the  evidential  value  of  the  archaic 
laws  which  characterize  the  Penta- 
teuch. These  laws  breathe  the  atmos- 
phere of  the  desert,  and  of  the  early 
conditions   of   national    development. 

4th.  It  is  incredible  that  the  "  hen  " 
should  have  no  mention  in  the  Penta- 
teuch if  it  was  not  written  till  a  late 
date. 

5th.  If  the  Pentateuch  was  not 
compiled  until  after  the  time  of  Da- 
vid, it  is  incredible  that  there  should 
have  been  no  mention  of  "  music,"  or 
of  "  Jerusalem,"  or  that  the  phrase 
"  Lord  of  Hosts  "  should  not  have  oc- 
curred in  it. 

6th.  To  place  the  compilation  of 
the  Pentateuch  at  the  end  of  Jewish 
liistoi'y  instead  of  at  the  beginning,  is 
to  reverse  the  true  law  of  historical 
development.  It  is  not  the  law  of 
development  that  nations  rise  by  the 
action  of  resident  forces  slowly  to  a 
high  degree  of  civilization.  It  is  the 
universal  law  that  upward  national 
development  has  been  dependent  on 
the  impulse  of  outside  forces.  Egypt 
received  her  impulse  to  civilization 
from  Babylonia,  Greece  hers  from 
Egypt,  Rome  hers  from  Greece, 
Northern  Europe  from  Rome.  At  the 
present  time  the  Christian  church 
does  not  expect  heathen  nations  to 
become  Christian  except  as  the  gos- 
pel is  carried  to  them  and  thrust 
unon  them.  It  is  this  law  that  makes 
a  missionaiy  church  the  great  need  of 
tlie  world.     To  suppose  that  this  law 


was  reversed  in  the  case  of  the  Jews 
is  contrary  to  reason.  Neither  In  his- 
tory nor  in  agriculture  do  we  "  gather 
grapes  from  thorns  or  figs  from  this- 
tles." For  the  church  to  reverse  this 
rule  in  their  interpretation  of  the  Old 
Testament  must  have  a  very  depres- 
sing effect  on  all  her  missionary  ac- 
tivities. 

7th.  Finally,  the  respect  paid  to 
the  Old  Testament  by  the  writers  of 
the  New,  is  such,  that  if  we  discard 
the  historical  character  of  the  Old, 
we  cannot  well  maintain  our  respect 
for  the  New.  and  the  estimate  of  the 
character  of  Christ  himself  must  be 
greatly  lowered. 

I'osiTiVE  Arguments 
But  we  do  not  rest  our  confidence 
in  the  historical  character  of  the  Old 
Testament  merely  on  negative  evi- 
dence, though  the  burden  of  proof 
falls  so  heavily  on  the  shoulders  of 
those  who  dispute  its  historicity  that 
to  lanswer  their  objections  Is  all  that 
is  really  necessary  to  maintain  con- 
fidence in  it.  ArchtBology,  however, 
amply  sustains  the  historical  state- 
ments of  the  Bible  in  both  testaments. 
I  may  also  call  attention  to  the  work 
which  I  have  done  in  the  realm  of 
scientific  tests  of  the  truth  of  Old 
Testament  stories.  I  think  I  have 
shown  that  in  the  case  of  the  crossing 
of  the  Red  Sea,  the  destruction  of 
Sodom,  the  falling  of  the  walls  of 
Jericho,  the  crossing  of  the  Jordan 
by  Joshua's  host,  and  the  Biblical  ac- 
count of  the  Flood,  there  is  such  a 
conformity  to  the  physical  conditions 
as  we  now  know  them,  that  they  could 
not  have  been  written  except  by  an 
eyewitness,  and  that  these  accounts 
have  been  remarkably  kept  free  from 
legendary  accretions.  Thus  the  his- 
torical character  of  the  Bible  is  sup- 
ported by  such  an  array  of  ciunula- 
tive  evidence  that  it  is  established,  in 
the  legal  phrase,  "  beyond  reasonable 
doubt." 


Value  of  an  Unmutilated  Bible 
This  being  the  case  it  would  appear 
to  be  extremely  presumptuous  in  a 
preacher  to  mutilate  tlie  sacred  rec- 
ord. The  apostle  warns  us  against 
building  on  the  foundation  which 
Christ  has  laid  "  hay,  wood,  and  stub- 
ble," and  though  one  who  innocently 
does  so  may  be  saved,  yet  it  will  be 
so  as  by  fire ;  his  work  will  be  burned 
and  he  will  suffer  loss.  Because  some 
parts  of  the  Bible  are  less  vital  and" 
important  than  others  it  does  not  fol- 
low that  they  are  useless.  It  is  with 
the  Bible  as  it  is  with  a  man :  the  vi- 
tal parts  may  remain  even  when  many 
of  the  important  members  are  lopped 
off.  When  a  boy  I  attended  Bar- 
num's  Great  Moral  Show,  and  there 
saw  a  man  play  a  bass  viol  with 
pretty  good  results,  though  he  had 
lost  both  of  his  arms.  He  fingered 
the  strings  with  the  toes  of  his  left 
foot,  and  handled  the  bow  with  his 
right  leg,  and  produced  very  respect- 
able music.  Yet  in  spite  of  all  this  it 
was  a  great  misfortune  that  he  was 
compelled  to  labor  with  such  a  mutil- 
ated organization.  So  it  will  be,  I  ap- 
prehend, with  those  who  attempt  to 
preach  the  gospel  with  a  mutilated 
Bible.  The  truth  is,  that  the  instruc- 
tion which  is  conveyed  in  the  history 
which  is  recorded  in  the  Bible  is  what 
is  needed  for  a  proper  understanding 
of  the  world's  want  in  all  time.  In 
the  Old  Testament  we  have  a  con- 
densed history  showing  up  human  na- 
ture in  all  its  phases.  If  we  neglect 
this  history  and  try  to  extract  all  its 
lessons  from  the  innumerable  biogra- 
phies, the  voluminous  cyclopaedias, 
the  endless  narratives,  and  the  ap- 
palling showers  of  newspapers  and 
magazines  of  the  present  day,  we 
shall  have  forsaken  the  fountain  of 
living  waters,  and  shall  be  hewing  out 
broken  cisterns  that  hold  no  water. 


PAMPHLET  BINDER 

^^^    Syrocuse,   N,    Y. 
Stockton,   Calif. 


651160  .W94 

Recent  developments  in  Old  Testament 

lmi'ri'°"  ^''^°'°5'"'  Seminary-Speer  Library 


1    1012  00041    1852 


^*-^'*3i^ 


►ts«? 


ts0-J¥^ 


^^■^. 


